alert - warning

This page has not been translated into 简体中文. Visit the 简体中文 page for resources in that language.

HMP for Canal Lining

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1046-DR
ApplicantSouth Tahoe Public Utility District
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#017-91001
PW ID#22859
Date Signed1997-02-06T05:00:00
Citation: Appeal Brief; Second Appeal; South Tahoe Public Utility District; FEMA-1046-DR-CA; PA #017-91001

Cross-Reference: DSRs 22859; Gunite Canal Lining; Hazard Mitigation Proposal (HMP)

Summary: During the winter storms of 1995, 200 feet of the lower Harvey canal within the South Tahoe Public Utility District (District) was damaged. The berm washed out and the wastewater canal was in danger of failing. FEMA prepared DSR 22859 for $125,705 to repair the berm with unclassified fill and asphalt base material. An HMP was prepared for $35,887 to line 200 feet of the canal with gunite for slope protection, but was not approved. The State submitted the first appeal on November 13, 1996, requesting $35,887 for the HMP. The basis of the appeal was that failure of the canal would have posed a public health and safety concern for the residents in the immediate area. The District indicated that a hired consultant recommended lining the canal with four inches of gunite, to provide stabilization and prevent future damage. The District elected to line a total of 800 feet of the canal. However, the $35,887 requested only applies to the 200 feet that collapsed during disaster 1046. In the first appeal response, the former Regional Director determined that the HMP was not eligible because the work had been completed before FEMA inspected the project and was not required by FEMA. Further, the former Regional Director indicated that FEMA was not given the opportunity to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the HMP and conducted a benefit/cost (B/C) analysis, which demonstrated that the HMP was not cost-effective. The former Regional Director also determined that appropriate environmental reviews were not conducted and denied the appeal. The State forwarded the second appeal on August 14, 1997. The basis of this appeal is that the cost-effectiveness of the HMP was demonstrated by actual experience. The District contends that the benefits of lining the canal were evidenced by the fact that no damage occurred to the lined-canal during the winter storms of 1997 (FEMA-1155-DR), a storm which produced more extensive damage to the area than the 1995 storms. The District also contends that environmental reviews would not have been required because the HMP would have qualified for a categorical exclusion.

Issue: Was the HMP cost-effective to prevent future damages and eligible for FEMA funding?

Findings: Yes. The B/C ratio of the first appeal analysis is 0.98, which includes $28,284 of damages after mitigation. However, in a subsequent, larger disaster event $0 in damages occurred after the mitigation measure was completed. This indicates that the B/C is actually greater than 1 and the HMP is cost-effective.

Rationale: 44 CFR 206.226 (c)

Appeal Letter

February 6, 1997

Mr. D.A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Post Office Box 239013
Sacramento, California 95823

Dear Mr. Christian:

This is in response to your letter of August 14, 1997, to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) forwarding a second appeal of damage survey report (DSR) 22859 under FEMA-1046-DR-CA, on behalf of South Tahoe Public Utility District (District). The District is requesting $35,887 for a Hazard Mitigation Proposal (HMP) to line a portion of the lower Harvey canal with gunite.

During the winter storms of 1995, 200 feet of the lower Harvey canal within the District were damaged. The berm washed out and the wastewater canal was in danger of failing. FEMA prepared DSR 22859 for $125,705 to repair the berm with unclassified fill and asphalt base material. An HMP was prepared for $35,887 to line 200 feet of the canal with gunite for slope protection, but was not approved. The State submitted the first appeal on November 13, 1996, requesting $35,887 for the HMP. The basis of the appeal was that failure of the canal would have posed a public health and safety concern for the residents in the immediate area. The District indicated that a hired consultant recommended lining the canal with four inches of gunite to provide stabilization and prevent future damage. The District elected to line a total of 800 feet of the canal. However, they only requested reimbursement for lining 200 feet. In the first appeal response, the former Regional Director determined that the HMP was not eligible because the work had been completed before FEMA inspected the project and was not required by FEMA. Further, the former Regional Director indicated that FEMA was not given the opportunity to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the HMP. The Regional Staff conducted a benefit/cost (B/C) analysis, which demonstrated that the HMP was not cost-effective. The former Regional Director also determined that appropriate environmental reviews were not conducted and denied the appeal.

The State forwarded the second appeal on August 14, 1997. The basis of this appeal is that the cost-effectiveness of the HMP was demonstrated by actual experience. The District contends that the benefits of lining the canal were evidenced by the fact that no damage occurred to the lined canal during the winter storm of 1997 (FEMA-1155-DR), a storm which produced more extensive damage to the area than did the 1995 storm. The District also contends that environmental reviews would not have been required because the HMP would have qualified for a categorical exclusion.

Historically, FEMA funds hazard mitigation projects to reduce damages and losses, and other devastating impacts and hardships due to future disasters. However, to be eligible for funding a hazard mitigation measure must be cost-effective. A B/C analysis is a measure of the cost-effectiveness of HMP projects. The B/C analysis performed in the first appeal of DSR 22859 indicated that the B/C ratio of the canal lining mitigation measure was 0.98. Typically a value of 1.0 is the minimum value to warrant additional expenses for an HMP. However, other factors impact the cost-effectiveness of an HMP, particularly factors which reduce the level of damages after mitigation efforts. Regarding the HMP to line the lower Harvey canal, the mitigation measure resulted in no additional damages to the canal from a successive and larger disaster event. Therefore, it can be inferred that the B/C ratio of the HMP is actually greater than 1.0. Pursuant to Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 206.226 (c), hazard mitigation may be eligible for assistance if required by the Regional Director and cost-effective. By definition, this HMP has proven to be cost-effective. Therefore, I am approving the second appeal for $35,887 for the canal lining hazard mitigation measures.

Please inform the applicant of my determination. I have directed the Regional Director to take appropriate action to implement this decision.

Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Resource and Recovery Directorate

cc: Dianne K. Bona
Acting Regional Director
Region IX